2015Nu4021 Revocation of revocation of the license for marine passenger transportation services

A Stock Company

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Guhap21358 Decided November 14, 2014

October 16, 2015

November 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On May 30, 2014, the defendant revoked the revocation of the permission for the marine passenger transport services rendered to the plaintiff by the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if both the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the evidence submitted in the first instance court Gap (including each number) are examined.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Paragraph 2 below with regard to the grounds for which part of the case is dismissed or for which the plaintiff claims to be particularly emphasized, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance. As such, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

Then, the "Maritime Transportation Act" in the second place of the judgment of the court of first instance is regarded as the "former Marine Transportation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Maritime Transportation Act")".

The "G" between the fourth and second reduction of the judgment of the first instance court is raised from "F".

○, the first instance court's decision No. 6th court's non-compliance with "non-compliance with".

The second sentence of the judgment of the first instance court is "K" as "H".

○ In accordance with the enforcement rules of the Marine Transportation Act between the 8th order of the first instance court and the fourth order.

The "Public Notice on Coastal Shipping prescribed by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries" shall be construed as the "Public Notice on Coastal Shipping prescribed by the Enforcement Rules of the Marine Transportation Act (Public Notice No. 2014-38 of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries).

The attached Form 1 of the judgment of the first instance court, among the related Acts and subordinate statutes, the "Maritime Transportation Act" in the 12th sentence of the 12th sentence of the " related Acts and subordinate statutes, shall be "the former Marine Transportation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015)", and the "public notice on inland shipping prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act" in the 15th sentence shall be the "public notice on coastal shipping prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Maritime Transportation Act" in the 15th sentence.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On November 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) did not register vessel leasing business within two months after the revocation of the vessel leasing business license for the E-lane; (b) accordingly, C-owner D (hereinafter “instant vessel”) may not be included in the Plaintiff’s passenger ship holding license for the B-lane pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (Notice No. 2014-38 of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s Notice No. 2014) (hereinafter “instant business license”); and (c) accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition of this case under Article 5(1)5 of the former Marine Transportation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1302, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “the Marine Transportation Act”). However, in this case, the Defendant’s notification to the Plaintiff of the instant vessel falling short of the license standards, on the ground that the vessel owner falls short of the license standards, i.e., the vessel owner’s 15th anniversary of Apr. 20, 2014.

2) The Defendant issued a vessel sales contract to the Plaintiff for the purchase of F (hereinafter referred to as “the instant substitute vessel”) on May 9, 2014, on the 20th of the same month when the Plaintiff entered into a vessel sales contract, temporary vessel's certificate, vessel photograph, etc. to put the instant substitute vessel, and requested the Defendant to review the vessel sales contract, temporary vessel's vessel's certificate, and vessel's photograph, etc. to put the instant substitute vessel, and the Plaintiff failed to operate the instant vessel due to voluntary auction procedures and execution, and due to the Plaintiff's poor repair of the instant vessel, such as engine damage, etc., caused the instant vessel's failure to repair. Thus, the Defendant violated the principle of proportionality as it did not make it impossible for the Plaintiff to notify the Plaintiff of the change of the business plan (the replacement) and grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to abuse the vessel due to the instant provisional disposition on the replacement vessel.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of first instance as cited by this court and the following facts, i.e., the National Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office notifies the plaintiff in writing of the fact of revoking the E-lane license on November 15, 2013; ii) the plaintiff and the actual manager of the plaintiff and C are the same person, so the plaintiff also appears to have been aware of the above cancellation of the license; ③ even if two months have already passed since the cancellation date of the C's license, the plaintiff had already been notified by the defendant as of April 7, 2014, and even if two months have already passed since the cancellation date of the C's license, the plaintiff could have been subject to the exception of Article 19 (1) 5 of the Marine Transportation Act by securing another ship and obtaining the approval for the modification of the business plan from the defendant, it is legitimate that the defendant made the instant disposition against the plaintiff on the ground that the ship of this case is not included

2) Judgment on the second argument

(5) The court of first instance cited the following circumstances, i.e., vessel transport business operators shall operate the instant vessel according to their business plan, except in the event of natural disasters or other inevitable circumstances. The court below found that the vessel was issued a voluntary auction and maintenance order on August 16, 2013, but it was impossible for the Plaintiff to take measures such as replacement of the vessel at the time of the instant case’s 20th vessel operation without obtaining permission for replacement of the vessel from the Defendant during the period of 1st to 35th of February. 28, 2014. The court below found that the Plaintiff could not take measures such as replacement of the vessel at the time of the instant case’s 1st of the instant vessel operation without obtaining permission for replacement of the vessel at the time of the instant case’s 1st of the instant vessel operation. The court below found the Plaintiff’s non-scheduled vessel operation order of the instant case’s 1st of September 1, 2013 to 206.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, senior judge and public officer;

Judges Boli-a

Judges fixed-term